Greens senator says major parties are 'no better than arsonists' – as it happened

We end the blog with emergency warnings for South Turramurra in Sydney being issued.

Stay safe, everyone. Do what you need to do.

We’ll be back tomorrow morning for the third day of the Senate-only sitting.

I hope, for all of our sakes, it is a boring day, with low winds, calm conditions and safe communities.

In the meantime – take care of you. Please.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, (which is often called the “no actual infrastructure fund” around these halls, because of the lack of infrastructure) is not only undergoing another inquiry – it will also lend $20m to the North Queensland Cowboys for a training centre.

The fund which was designed to turn the north into an economic powerhouse will also help the Cowboys train its Thurstons of the future.

Funding for the new state-of-the-art Cowboys Community, Training and High Performance Centre continues to take shape with the advancement of a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) loan moving to the next stage of approval.

The North Queensland Toyota Cowboys’ application to NAIF has progressed, with NAIF’s Board making an investment decision to approve a loan to the project.

The $20m NAIF loan would complement the existing $15m federal government grant announced in March enabling the construction of the project to commence. Completion is targeted for the facilities to be available for the 2021 NRL season.

The proposed centre, to be located adjacent to the new North Queensland Stadium in Townsville, will combine community areas, multi-sport high-performance training spaces, sports medicine and sports science laboratories, together with the stadium and administration offices, located in between Ross Creek and Saunders Street in Townsville City.

Scott Morrison is on his way to the Australian crisis centre, in Canberra, to get a fire update.

It is still not listed for debate - which means the government doesn’t have the numbers it wants, but the medevac issue is till ticking away.

An alliance of Australia’s medical professionals have put out this statement calling for medevac to stay:

Medical decisions should be made by medical professionals – Alliance of medical authorities appeals to parliament to save medevac

The presidents of leading medical colleges across Australia are appealing to the Senate to maintain the medevac legislation and the Independent Health Advice Panel (IHAP) process.

The medical community remains united in asking the parliament to maintain the medevac legislation and to allow the IHAP panel to continue its critical work providing independent clinical review and oversight.

There is clear evidence of the effectiveness of the medevac legislation, and the medical need. Medevac has improved access to appropriate healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers being held offshore. It is providing greatly improved oversight and accountability.

As doctors, we continue to put patients first and uphold the basic human right to healthcare.

We know that previous delays and failures to transfer ill asylum seekers resulted in preventable suffering.

This statement is on behalf of the presidents of:

• The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM)
• The Australasian College of Dermatologists (ACD)
• The Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP)
• The Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM)
• The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA)
• The College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (CICM)
• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
• The Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators (RACMA)
• The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG)
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR)

The solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, has asked the high court to refuse Annika Smethurst’s bid to order police to destroy evidence seized in the raid of her home to preserve evidence for possible future prosecution.

Donaghue noted that evidence seized in the raid can be used to prosecute offences other than the one listed on the warrant – namely, the police could use it to prosecute Smethurst’s source.

He said Smethurst is “at the other end” of an alleged unlawful disclosure, a “serious breach” of the Intelligence Services Act.

There is discretion for a court in a possible future criminal trial to reject evidence that was unlawfully obtained, and Donaghue asked that the court not order destruction or return of evidence that would “pre-empt” that process.

He noted that even if Smethurst wins in her constitutional argument that the offence police were investigating in relation to her publication of the material was unconstitutional, the material should still be left in police’s hands because of the possibility it could be used to prosecute her source.

Mark Butler has put out this statement on Angus Taylor:

Today it was revealed in a Senate estimates spill-over hearing that the minister’s department provided a draft letter to the Minister’s office which responded to the letter from the lord mayor of the City of Sydney. That draft letter is very different to the final letter sent by Minister Taylor to the lord mayor. The department’s draft letter provided to the minister’s office contained no reference to the City of Sydney’s travel expenditure.

Senator Keneally: Did that draft response include reference to the City of Sydney’s travel expenditure?

Departmental Official: No Senator, it did not.

(Environment and Energy Estimates spill-over hearing, 12 November 2019)

The department confirmed that after it provided this draft response, Angus Taylor’s office did not request any further information or drafts. It was also confirmed that the department was not asked to verify any additional information in the version of the letter signed by Angus Taylor which contained the doctored figures.

Despite repeated questioning, the minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Birmingham, refused to provide further information about where the doctored figures came from and instead referred to Angus Taylor’s previous statements.

Angus Taylor needs to come clean about exactly how these doctored figures turned up in a letter signed by him – because we have yet to see a public document that confirms his version of events.

If Angus Taylor won’t provide the answers, the prime minister should direct his embattled minister to provide a full and frank explanation.

Mike Bowers has been out and about

Penny Wong just tried to bring an end to question time – “I think the time for questions has expired,” she says, probably hopefully.

Alas, no. There are two more minutes.

Annika Smethurst’s lawyers have been urged to clarify their case on whether material copied from her phone was confidential to support her bid to force police to delete the information taken during the raid on her home.

On Tuesday the high court stood over oral submissions to Wednesday’s hearing to give Smethurst’s counsel time to clarify her case and consider seeking an order to prevent the use of material copied from her phone rather than its destruction.

Smethurst has asked the court for an injunction ordering the police to destroy material collected and copied from her phone on the basis the raid in June constituted trespass.

Smethurst’s counsel, Stephen Lloyd, was grilled repeatedly about how the court could order destruction of documents, without a breach in equity such as a breach of confidence.

Chief justice Susan Kiefel said that a breach of confidentiality could result in destruction of confidential material but noted “that’s not this case” and the plaintiffs had “never said the information was confidential to the plaintiff”, an observation echoed by Justice Patrick Keane.

Justice Geoffrey Nettle noted that trespass could result in damages but asked what grounds Smethurst had to ask for destruction of the information “if it is not confidential – and it doesn’t sound like it is [confidential] to you”.

Lloyd responded that damages were “not an adequate remedy” and although the plaintiffs hadn’t asserted breach of confidence the court should undo the wrong of material being “forcibly taken from the phone” through the torts of trespass and conversion.

Kiefel suggested some of the material may be confidential depending on its “ultimate source” and queried whether a negative injunction ordering the police not to use the information would be sufficient. Lloyd said that it may be.

Lloyd then changed tack, arguing that copied material is confidential in the sense that “it’s on their own phone and they’re the only one that can access it”.

After a short break, the court returned and Kiefel suggested it stand over submissions on relief so that Smethurst’s counsel could consider their position further.

Lloyd suggested on Wednesday he may shift Smethurst’s case to seek a negative injunction preventing police using material seized and copied, rather than its destruction.

Kiefel replied that Lloyd would still have to examine the “underlying cause [of action]” and warned “the basis for a negative or mandatory injunction needs to be dealt with with a good degree of particularity tomorrow morning”.

Again, it was Barnaby Joyce who raised the issue in response to a question about resources for hazard reduction burns.

His comments were run in full.

Barnaby Joyce has explained his comments to Sam Maiden at the New Daily:

Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Joyce told Sky News the local community needed more resources for hazard reduction burns and said: “And that’s the crazy thing there, and I acknowledge that the two people who died were most likely people who voted for the Green party, so I am not going to start attacking them. That’s the last thing I want to do.”

But he accused critics of “wantonly misrepresenting” his remarks about two NSW bushfire victims – Vivian Chaplain and George Nole.

Mr Joyce said he was actually trying to urge politicians to be more respectful of the alternative community where the victims lived, where the majority of residents did vote for the Greens.

“My point is I was saying ‘just be careful, you don’t understand’. If you came into my community and talked to them – I am not having a go at the Greens, I think that’s completely wrong,” Mr Joyce told the New Daily.

“The people who live there are in a commune basically. Wytaliba is an alternative community. They don’t vote for me, they vote for Greens, and I’ve got no problem with it. They agree there should have been more burn reduction, fuel reduction.”

Jacqui Lambie asks about the number of lobbying and unescorted passes in parliament.

It is a question for Scott Ryan, as a representative of DPS.

Ryan refers her estimate hearings transcripts.

It is worth noting that Barnaby Joyce brought this up himself – he was asked about whether or not fire and emergency service workers had enough resources for hazard reduction, and included the deaths of Vivian Chaplain and George Nole and his view of their political leanings in his answer, without any prompting.

I am not sure there is ever an appropriate time to bring that up – and not just because now is not the time “to talk politics”.

Richard Colbeck is now talking about all the action the government has taken on aged care.

Given that most of the response has been “this is terrible, and we will look at it”, it is not the strongest of answers here.

Does Simon Birmingham have any information about potential power blackouts in South Australia, Stirling Griff asks?

Grid reliability in SA is improving, Birmingham says.

The reliability standard in SA is “expected to be met”.

Oh look – a lot of it is because of new renewables coming on to the grid.

We move on to the dairy code of conduct – and why the exposure draft has been changed (which was the question Bridget McKenzie couldn’t answer this morning on ABC radio).

There is still not an answer. But we do have a nice history of how we got here.

Senate question time begins with an update on the fire, and the defence force role.

It is as expected – helping with coordination and remaining on standby – but they are not firefighters.

We are coming up to Senate question time.

Sigh.

Larissa Waters has seen the Parliamentary Friends of Resources Christmas party invite:

As Queensland and NSW burns, both the Liberals and Labor thought it was a good time to invite parliamentarians to Christmas drinks hosted by the fossil fuel industry, whose product is fuelling climate change and donations are blocking climate action.

It sounds like satire but it’s the sad reality of Australian politics in 2019.

Mehreen Faruqi singled out Joel Fitzgibbon:

Seriously, Joel? Our state is on fire and this is the day you pick to invite us all to drinks with the oil and gas lobby, some of the biggest contributors to the climate crisis …

This seems like pretty bad timing, given everything that is happening with the fire emergency:

Dear Colleagues,

As Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Resources we are pleased to invite you to the Bright Sparks Christmas drinks hosted by the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA).

The event will be on Wednesday, 4^th December at 6:30pm.

Please see attached the formal invitation and direct any RSVPs to [redacted by me]

Cheers,

Hon Joel Fitzgibbon Mr Craig Kelly

Shadow Minister for Resources Member for Hughes

Member for Hunter

Labor senator Murray Watt jumped in there, with an interjection:

MW:

We are used to Senator Steele-John’s lectures … but it is highly offensive for him to refer to members of this chamber, regardless of their political party, as arsonists.

… It is an indication of the lengths that the Greens will go to to make their political point and I ask him to withdraw.

Jordon Steele-John did not have to withdraw:

Senator Steele-John was not making a direct reference to any senator in particular. Please continue, Senator Steele-John. There is no point of order.

Steele-John:

There will come a time when the Australian community will look back and ask itself a simple question: what were we doing when they were defending their homes, when they were protecting their communities, when they were defending precious natural habitat, what were we here doing?

The answer this day, as has been the answer on so many occasions since I have entered this place, is make the problem worse, because it was too difficult to do otherwise or because somebody was paying us to do it.

That is the only answer that they will discover in this place and they, like me, will be disgusted and ashamed at the weakness, at the cowardice, at the self-interest, at the ignorance that led us to this moment.

They will condemn you, as you should rightly be condemned, and hold you accountable at the ballot box and beyond.

This is also going on

Over in Senate estimates, Barnaby Joyce’s comments have made waves:

Kristina Keneally: Minister I have a question for you. Earlier today Barnaby Joyce said on Sky News …

Chair David Fawcett: Excuse me Senator Keneally just a reminder to use the correct titles when referring to members of the other House.

KK: The member for New England said on Sky News that the two people who died in bushfires, he said, “I acknowledge that the two people who died were most likely people who voted for the Green party so I’m not going to start attacking them. That’s the last thing I want to do.” How does he know who they voted for and why does it matter? They’re dead; they died in a bushfire. Isn’t that enough?

Simon Birmingham: I’ve not seen the quotes Senator Keneally, I have no idea what Mr Joyce was referring to and they’d be questions for him.

KK: Do you think it matters who they voted for?

SB: No Senator.

KK: Do you associate yourself with those comments?

Fawcett: I remind you this is a Senate estimates hearing into the Department of Environment. The comments by a backbencher are not relevant for this hearing.

KK: They’re very relevant.

Gerard Rennick had the third spot on the LNP Senate ticket: he wasn’t supposed to win. But Labor’s primary vote tanked in Queensland, meaning they lost a Senate spot to the LNP. And Rennick is in for six years.

There are bets about how long he’ll stay in the LNP before moving the crossbench/One Nation – from within his own party room.

Those other things he is interested in? Read One Nation’s policy document and you can pretty much cross them off. He also thinks we need some sort of modern holey dollar to get the economy out of the doldrums.

Good. Times.

But it got SO MUCH BETTER.

Because has Gerard Rennick read the bureau’s explanations – the peer reviewed explanations – given, you know, he is accusing them of manipulating data, because he knows data?

Rennick:

No, I haven’t actually read that.

Oh? Why? Wouldn’t that be a good idea, given his concerns?

Rennick:

I read someone who I trusted, Jennifer Marohasy, who has a PhD in biology … she has heaps and heaps of statistical information, so I basically posted an article by her, on my website, on Facebook page, and I basically agreed with what she said.”

Dr Marohasy, it might interest you to know, is attached to the IPA.

Tom Connell: One person has written something, and you have agreed with that based on what they have said.

Rennick:

Well based on her credentials, yes.

Connell: But you haven’t read the data, or sought other resources.

Rennick:

Well, I don’t … at that time I was a Senate candidate, and my view is, and I know enough to know, because I have a background in statistics, if you are not doing a parallel run, if you are not doing regression analysis properly, then you have to be very careful about changing data.

Connell: Do you have to be careful about making accusations as a senator? … Have you sought briefings from the bureau?

Rennick:

And I’ll get to that, that is not the main reason that I ran for politics, so there are other things I would like to get to first.

Connell: But don’t the facts matter?

Rennick:

Well the facts do matter, but the problem is the facts are there was data recorded in the 1930s that got changed, so what are you going to call the facts?

Yesterday on Sky News, LNP senator Gerard Rennick told Tom Connell about why he believes the Bureau of Meteorology rewrote weather records to fit in with a global warming agenda.

What is the proof of that? Connell asked.

The proof of that, is basically, that they, basically adapted a new weather measuring instrument and they didn’t run a parallel run at the time. So if you are going to adapt a new measuring instrument, which they did in the late 90s, they should have run a parallel run with the old measuring instrument, so you knew what the difference was between the old measuring instrument, and the new instrument was.”

The BOM have released a lot of information on homogenisation of information, Connell says – and if you took that route, it would look like global warming was even worse.

Rennick:

I’ve worked in finance for 25 years and I have never known a CFO to walk into a company and rewrite the financial statements from 100 years ago. So why you go back 50 or 60 years and rewrite records, that you have no idea how they were measured, the standardisation or anything, and then change that, you have got to have proof. And the way you do regression analysis, is that you have to have a large number of observations to do this.

Connell comes back with there being some issues with measuring stations, the changes in the environment giving different reasons - outlining some of the detail the BOM has put forward as why they did this. “What are you accusing them of exactly?”

Rennick:

I am accusing them of not following proper process for recording statistical data.

Connell: But you had the word “agenda” when you mentioned this - so are you saying there are people in there deliberately altering data within the BOM?

Rennick:

I am saying we should have more rigorous testing of the Bureau of Metrology in the way they change data, absolutely.

Connell: But the agenda part, as in, they want more people to sort of take global warming seriously, so they are deliberately fiddling data. It is a pretty serious accusation.

Rennick:

Yeah, it is a serious accusation, and I stand by it, I don’t believe the change in records, and the way they have gone about it, and I have a background in system accounting, where I have changed records, and we have always done a parallel run.

The Senate sitting has begun.

Barnaby Joyce’s comments have reached the red chamber. I’ll bring you some of that in a moment.

Despite receiving letter signed by 22 of Australia’s former fire chiefs in April – followed up by another letter in September – requesting meetings to discuss the impact of climate change on the bushfire risk, the federal government failed to meet with the high level delegation.

Minister Simon Birmingham, representing the minister for energy and emissions reduction, Angus Taylor said the minister’s office had contacted the group on 10 September offering a meeting in October, “but this hasn’t been taken up by the former fire chiefs”.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young asked why it had taken five months since the first request to offer a meeting.

Birmingham replied that the April letter had asked for a meeting after the election in May, so it was not five months.

In the high court, Annika Smethurst’s counsel has been attacking the warrant authorising the search on her home, arguing it failed to describe the conduct which allegedly constituted the offence.

The warrant said:

“On the 29 April 2018, Annika Smethurst and the Sunday Telegraph communicated a document or article to a person, that was not in the interest of the commonwealth, and permitted that person to have access to the document, contrary to section 79(3) of the Crimes Act 1914, Official Secrets.”

Stephen Lloyd argued the warrant needed to describe the information police were seeking and “how it became proscribed in relation to both the [potential] accused”. Warrants must “refer to the offending conduct not merely a reference to the section”, according to Lloyd.

He attacked the floating phrase “that was not in the interest of the commonwealth” – arguing it wasn’t clear if it referred to a document or a communication that wasn’t in the interest of the commonwealth.

The warrant both “didn’t state an offence known to law” and lacked sufficient particularity, he said. The lack of detail was “apt to mislead Smethurst and the executing officers” to allow a broader search.

Joel Fitzgibbon has held a doorstop on the dairy code of conduct, flanked by senators and members of the NSW and Queensland dairy sector.

Fitzgibbon called on Bridget McKenzie to explain the changes to the dairy code of conduct, saying it had been watered down to the extent that some farmers would rather have no code than the one proposed.

“Senator Bridget McKenzie, the agriculture minister, needs to immediately answer the question she declined to respond to five times on ABC radio this morning – she needs to tell dairy farm communities who it was that recommended to her that the all-important code of conduct in the dairy industry be watered down – watered down so significantly that dairy farm leaders are now saying that this dairy code would be worse than not having a dairy code at all.”

Fitzgibbon said Labor was calling for the code to be introduced “sooner rather than later” alongside a floor price on farm gate prices. He said the deregulation of the industry that occurred under the Howard government in 2000 had not resulted in a “good outcome” for dairy farmers, who were struggling with the cost price squeeze.

He called on the prime minister, Scott Morrison, to intervene in the sector.

“Scott Morrison needs to put his pride aside and admit he has it wrong [and] concede that we do need some significant government intervention in the dairy industry.

“A code of conduct is important, but it won’t fix the wide range of problems facing our dairy farmers, including that price squeeze. We need a minimum farm gate milk price so that farmers can receive a fair price for their milk.

“If we don’t intervene, we don’t have a dairy industry in this country and, god forbid, we will be importing our milk.”

Fitzgibbon said that he never expected Pauline Hanson’s dairy industry bill to pass the parliament, and defended the “symbolic” move against criticism that the legislation may have had some flaws.

He said details could have been thrashed out in the House of Representatives had the legislation won the support of Nationals MPs, who could have crossed the floor in support of the Hanson bill.

Dairy farmers from NSW and Queensland also spoke to the media, saying they were disappointed that the code had been watered down, noting concerns about the ability of contract prices to be revised down in certain circumstances.

“We are very disappointed that the code has gone backwards in our opinion,” Brian Tessmann, the president of the Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation, said.

He said the number of dairy farmers in Queensland had dropped from 1,500 in 2000 to just 350 today.

“We are losing them all the time.”

Fitzgibbon said that dairy farmers needed to unite to persuade the government to act, singling out the SA dairy industry for opposing the minimum farm gate price.

When asked if he believed the code had been watered down to appease large producers in McKenzie’s home state of Victoria, Fitzgibbon said Australians needed to consider who would benefit from the changes.

The interview finishes with this.

Kieran Gilbert: But the thing is, you’re also arguing for policies to change in this context, which I, which I understand and your constituents are affected here. But would any of that be enough to deal with these catastrophic conditions that we are seeing?

Barnaby Joyce:

Well, the only thing that burns is vegetation and if you’ve done fire hazard reduction burns, you don’t have the vegetation or the amount there, to burn.

And the other thing is, these fires are super hot, super aggressive, because of the fuel load.

And not only does that, not only does that incredibly dangerous and fatal for people, it also kills the trees. You’ll go back later and because it has been so hot, the trees will be dead, and in the past, you will do a fire reduction burn and therefore the heat of the fire, when it would go through again, they would definitely be further bushfires, but they’re not to the same intensity.

And that is something that we need to rediscover, because it’s something the Aboriginals discovered years ago, because they wanted to stay alive.

KG: In the wash-up in this tragedy, this disaster, there needs to be a discussion about how we maximise our response to this, because you have said yourself the fire season is longer, the window is shorter in terms of trying to protect these communities, to backburn, to reduce these hazards.

BJ:

Yes, that is a fact and I used to be stupid to argue against that, that is a fact. And to say that, you know, that this the same climatic conditions as in the past is wrong, because we are in a record drought and by statement of its record droughts, it is automatically different – that is a fact.

To say that a policy that is conducted in Australia from a room in Canberra, where 76 out of 150 will vote for it, that will change the bushfire season, is an absurdity and erroneous and it is completely misleading because it’s going to have no effect on the climate whatsoever.

Kieren Gilbert from Sky News asked Barnaby Joyce about Greg Mullins’ comments:

Of course, for the salaciousness, we want sort of an adversarial relationship where people are throwing rocks at one another.

I, like, completely condone that this is climate change. So let’s put that one aside. And I acknowledge that things are getting drier. We’re in a record drought. I mean, it’s the bleeding obvious – look at the windows, wanna see what’s happening.

But if you say, and where I really disagree, though, is when Mr Bandt said, ‘Oh, well, if we reduce, we stop using coal and have an anti-coal policy in Australia – that the fire season will be minimised.’ That was his words. Go back and check your tape, that is what he said.

That is either a lie, or absurdly misrepresenting and wrong. And I think it’s because there is no policy domestically in Australia that’s going to have any effect on the climate whatsoever.

There are a range of things that affect the climate and on a global scale, you should be part of it, and acknowledge it would have an affect, and I acknowledge that there are other issues as well. There’s just the the oscillation of the seasons. There’s a change in the magnetic field of the sun.

KG: But do you accept that the fire-burning opportunity is reduced, because of the fire season being longer. So the question is, when do you get to do the backburning?

BJ:

In the middle of winter, in times, where, after a sufficient period after rain, you – it’s not as if there is no period where we do have the capacity to do it. It has been confounded by excessive bureaucracy.

And I think that the bureaucracy is driven by, let’s call it by conservation principle, by people who do not live in the forest, they do not live near the area.

You know, we have the belief that there’s a political sort of zeitgeist purpose that sits behind this, because it definitely was a political decision to let fire trials fall into disrepair.

And it is definitely a bureaucratic process, that means that even when they can backburn, it is so difficult bureaucratically, that it either doesn’t happen or it doesn’t happen to the extent that it needs to.

And it was a process and it is a policy that they don’t have central watering points in the state forests and in the in the areas where they can get access to the mechanisms to fight these fires.

And the other thing – the trees are right next to roads, and of course the trees burn fall over the roads, the fire trucks can’t get in, and more importantly, people trying to escape the fire, can’t get out.

(Just another reminder that the fire authorities have said they have done hazard reduction burning ahead of this season.)

Did I miss that period in Australian political history where the Greens held every single government?

Or that the Liberals have held government in NSW for the last eight years?

Or that the Coalition has held federal government for 17 of the last 23 years?

Former NSW fire commissioner Greg Mullins wrote this in the SMH yesterday:

Warmer, drier conditions with higher fire danger are preventing agencies from conducting as much hazard reduction burning – it is often either too wet, or too dry and windy to burn safely. Blaming “greenies” for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”

He would know. It was his job to know. He, along with former fire and emergency chiefs from all over the country have tried to meet with the government since April to discuss issues with Australia’s fire preparation, including the impact of climate change, and why the old way of doing things just isn’t cutting it anymore. They didn’t get that meeting.

Barnaby Joyce is on Sky News talking about the hazard reduction burns and other things he thinks have been policy failures, less than 20 minutes after Scott Morrison told Ray Hadley that all of these issues (ahem, climate change) should only be discussed after the fire emergency.

This is despite experts like Greg Mullins, saying that the fire seasons are getting closer together, leaving less time to do things like hazard burns. And also, that the Greens are not in power anywhere in Australia, and therefore have not actually enacted policy anywhere. As well as emergency service chiefs saying hazard reductions have been occurring each and every year. Joyce says it can be done during the winter.

Which would be just before the Queensland fire season began this year – in September. When the rainforest was on fire.

Gabby Chan has written about Michael McCormack’s ABC radio interview yesterday – and the impact that his words have on people who live in the areas his party is supposed to be representing:

Those of us who live in the country need metropolitan Australians to understand our lives more than ever. Yet this sort of rubbish about ‘woke inner-city greenies’ is exactly the sort of crap that divides the nation and takes the place of the more difficult policy work to address some of our challenges.

It is cheap talk that kills farmers’ social licence at a time when we need cities to understand how important the job of food-growing is for their own bellies and how important food production is to the economy of regional communities.

As the dairy industry bleeds under crippling water prices, we need to have a serious conversation about the diversity of our food sector and its building blocks – soil, water and energy – and how they are impacted by climate change.

We need the city to understand how important the growing renewables sector is to providing new jobs to our communities, while ensuring we take our own coal workers by the hand into new opportunities.

The high court is sitting in Canberra today to hear Annika Smethurst’s challenge against the validity of the warrant authorising the police raid on her home.

In June the Australian federal police raided Smethurst’s home, investigating an alleged breach of section 79(3) of the Crimes Act, which prohibits “communicating or allowing someone to have access to an official secret without authorisation”.

Smethurst’s challenge has two prongs: one challenging the validity of the warrant and the second challenging the validity of the offence on the basis it infringes the implied freedom of political communication.

At the start of the hearing, chief justice Susan Kiefel reveals that the court has asked Smethurst’s lawyers to focus their arguments on the validity of the warrant. Smethurst’s counsel Stephen Lloyd says his understanding is the court wants him to make submissions about the warrant and then stop, which Kiefel confirms. This is a big hint that the case is not going to be decided on the constitutional argument.

Attorney general Christian Porter has intervened in the case, asking the court to refuse a bid to destroy material collected from the raid, arguing it “may well be important” for a potential future prosecution. Porter and the Australian federal police will be represented by solicitor general Stephen Donaghue.

South Australia has intervened supporting the commonwealth, while the Australian Human Rights Commission has made further submissions about the limits of commonwealth power in support of Smethurst.

Scott Morrison to Ray Hadley on “policy discussions” to be had after the fire emergency:

But you’re absolutely right, Ray the time to have those policy discussions are not in the middle of an operational response.

And whether it’s that [hazard reduction burning] or any other issue.

It’s not that people don’t think those issues are important or need to be acknowledged – whatever issue we’re talking about, it’s just going to focus our efforts on the operational response that’s what people in the crisis areas need.

Alexander Downer performing, “lol, I am not a spy (not that I can talk about it).”

I’m not gonna say anything more about it,” he told Sky News.

The Australian government’s fully cooperating, although I don’t work for the Australian government any more. I’m obviously in touch with them on all of this. And so that’s our line ...

... America’s politics is for Americans, not for us. I think we’re best to keep me out of it if we possibly can.”

Scott Morrison is speaking to Ray Hadley on 2GB.

“I just really want to assure people that everything that can be done, is being done,” he said, despite nature probably “throwing some curveballs”.

The defence force is on standby to assist – they are not necessarily trained in firefighting, but they can help with evacuations and coordinating teams.

Alexander Downer is working his way through “I can’t talk about it because it is an ongoing US investigation, but I am not a spy” tour.

He will address the National Press Club later today.

Meanwhile, the number of lobbyists wandering around Parliament House has almost doubled in less than a decade (spoiler – nothing is being done to address it).

From Josh Taylor

The number of lobbyists with unfettered access to the halls of Parliament House to see politicians, staffers and journalists under the sponsored pass holder scheme has nearly doubled in the last seven years, Guardian Australia has learned.

In addition to parliamentarians, their staffers, building employees and the press gallery, there is a separate category for sponsored passes where people, often working as lobbyists, can enter and exit the building through the private entrances, and not need an escort through the non-public parts of the building.

The passes are sponsored by MPs and senators, and although the orange passes are not limited to lobbyists, a significant proportion of those issued would be to groups lobbying in parliament.

You can read more about that here.